Making Omelettes

By Tuesday, January 7, 2014 0 No tags Permalink 0

The expression, or rather justification, for questionable decisions goes, ‘If you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs’. In the case of Porter Airlines’ proposal to cover the waterfront with jets, the egg could be on the faces of city councillors. Blanketing one of Toronto’s prime tourist features with monster planes is a decision that threatens the viability of one of Toronto’s prime tourist attractions, recreational venues and an important city neighbourhood.

 

Consider the size of the jet that dwarfs the plane that Porter currently flies.   The CS100 is almost twice the volume and weight of the Q400.

 

VOLUME COMPARISON M3
CS100 Q400 DIFFERENCE
Cargo/Baggage Volume 23.7 m3 14.22 m3 9.48 m3
VOLUME COMPARISON FT3
Cargo/Baggage Volume 840 ft3 502 ft3 338 ft3

 

 

WEIGHT COMPARISON KG
CS100 Q400 DIFFERENCE
Maximum takeoff weight 58,967 kg 29,257 kg 29,710 kg
Maximum landing weight 50,802 kg 28,009 kg 22,793 kg

 

WEIGHT COMPARISON LB
CS100 Q400 DIFFERENCE
Maximum takeoff weight 130,000 lb 64,500 lb 65,500 lb
Maximum landing weight 112,000 lb 61,750 lb 50,250 lb

In addition to its size and weight, the jet has a longer range than the Q400: 5,463 km vs 2,522 km.

It doesn’t take rocket or aviation science to figure out that a larger, heavier plane with a longer range is going to expend a great deal more energy. The spin masters behind the jet proposal want us to believe that the jet will whisper through lifting a 130,000 lb aircraft at takeoff and landing it at 112,000 lbs without anyone noticing it.

It’s like believing an ostrich egg omelette is the same size as one made with hen’s eggs.

chicken-egg

http://www2.bombardier.com/q400/en/specifications.jsp

http://crj1000nextgen.bombardier.com/pdf/CS100_factsheet.pdf

 

Comments are closed.